JUDGMENT :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by parents of the deceased, who, died in motor vehicle accident on 2nd May, 1998.

2. Earlier the appellants had filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (the “MACT, Mumbai”) only partly allowed the claim holding that the appellants were entitled to recover and get Rs. 2,00,000/- inclusive of the No Fault Liability amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from November, 2003 till realization. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the “MV Act”).

3. The brief facts are that the son of the appellants, who was studying M.B.A. course at Lonir, Dist. Ahmednagar and had completed first year of M.B.A. course, on 2nd May, 1998, while he was coming home in an auto rickshaw along with his friend met with an accident in which he sustained serious injuries. Sujeet Singh, son of the Appellants, was traveling in auto-rickshaw No. MH-16-B-2112 belonging to Respondent No. 1 and insured with Respondent No. 2 when the said auto-rickshaw in which Sujeet was travelling while passing in front of Advani Company met with an accident and turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of auto-rickshaw driver. Due to the said accident Sujeet Singh sustained very serious injuries, was taken to a hospital at Ahmednagar and thereafter brought to K.E.M Hospital, Mumbai but unfortunately he died at the K.E.M Hospital on 25th May, 1998 as a result of the injuries. The matter was reported to the police and a case was filed against the auto-rickshaw driver. It was contended that the deceased had a bright career and after completing the M.B.A. course would have earned easily Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- per year and that his age was 22 years and the claim for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- was justified.

4. It is submitted that inspite of due and proper service, owner of the auto rickshaw being Respondent No. 1 herein, remained absent and the claim before the Tribunal went ex-parte against him. The Insurance Company being Respondent No. 2 herein, had filed written statement before the Tribunal and objected to the claim and denied the liability.

5. The Tribunal considered the evidence of Appellant No. 1, who is the father of the deceased and the claimant’s witness Pramol Saxena, who was with the deceased at the time of accident being eye-witness, documentary evidence such as FIR, spot panchnama, post-mortem notes, cause of death certificate and observed that the negligence of the driver in the motor vehicle accident was established and proved.

6. With respect to the evidence regarding the income and future expected earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal despite the evidence that the deceased was a bright student and could have reached the post of Executive and despite the evidence on record in the shape of the witness Nitin Singh about the fact that he was M.B.A. from Banaras Hindu University and got the appointment as Senior Officer with a monthly salary of Rs. 15,200/- and observing that, there was no evidence to the fact that the deceased was the only son of the applicants and that the father of the deceased was working as Senior Pharmacist in K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai, which aspect would have to be considered while ascertaining the dependency and future loss caused to the Appellants and considering the uncertainty of life and the then condition for getting jobs and the saturation in the certain filed, held that the say of the claimant that the deceased would have earned Rs. 15,000/- per month cannot be the basis to come to the conclusion about the dependency of the appellants. Further, observing that there was no evidence to establish that the deceased was the only son, on the basis of the submis